Howdy Petr:
Yep. I don't have the JDK installed on my box, nor the
time to install that big old suckah right now. :-)
People have expressed amazement at the slowness of my
computer as indicated by my speed tests. I should have
mentioned that my machine was rather loaded down (as
usual) at the time I ran those tests, SOOOO... the
significance of my timing stats was only in
demonstrating relative performance, not absolute
performance. I get a D- for proper benchmarking
methodology. (Good thing Tim Peters isn't around to
flame me! (-: ) In either case, the point I was looking
at was that A) REBOL performs comparable to PERL, and
B) performs much better than other interpreted
languages. I have faith that other people's findings
should be similar.
I'm pretty sure there's some site that has the ackerman
(?) benchmark implemented in dozens of languages that
can be used to really get to the bottom of the speed
issue. Last year Joe Marshal, the previous implementer
of REBOL, did some tests using it, including results
from his compiled REBOL like language.
-jeff
> Hi Jeff :-)
>
> miss JAVA here, could you do the same test on the same
> machine, using JAVA please?
>
> btw: I thought byte code should be necessarily faster, but
> doesn't seem so??? .... btw2: any plans on REBOL compiler
> (or being able to compile some parts fo code, which make
> sense to compile, as suggested in the past)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -pekr-
